The Ecclesia Network

a missional church network

Chris Backert

by

6 Marks of Vitality for Today’s Church

Over this last year, one of the key goals we have been working on during our family’s homeschooling adventure is an understand of homophones, homographs, and homonyms.  In case you are forgetting your beginning Greek and Latin, a homophone is a word that sounds the same, but is spelled differently, and with a different meaning.  In contrast a homograph is a word that is spelled the same, but sounds different, and also carries a different meaning.  Related, but apart from both of those, are homonyms. These are words that sound alike and are spelled alike but have different meanings.  “Church” is one of those words. 

For many people, when they talk about a church, they are talking about the “local” church.  That is, a community of people, covenanted with one another, and gathered around the risen Jesus in a specific location.  For a long time, this has been associated with a building or a place of meeting, but we all know that it means much more than this.  This is the primary use of the word ekklesia in the New Testament.  In addition, there is the “universal” church.  A concept we clearly get from the pages of scripture and we can all acknowledge is that such a reality “exists.”  Yet, as Dallas Willard once remarked, “The problem with the “universal” church is that we can never see it.  Only God sees it, and it is probably better that way.”  However, in the pages of scripture, there is a third understanding of the word ekklesia, and it is the one most important to our network. 

The Kind of “Church” that is Ecclesia

Craig Van Gelder goes to great pains to demonstrate that this usage of the term ekklesia is where we get our conception of networks, families of churches, or denominations both historically and textually.  This usage referenced the connection of local churches beyond their own individuality.  Yet, the reason we do not notice these texts as often is because their direct application is varied.  In some cases, the texts describe leaders that are sent out from congregations, in others they are teams sent for resourcing purposes, and still others describe apostles and overseers that serve beyond one local church.  In all, Van Gelder describes this usage of ekklesia as “mobile mission structures” that exist beyond local churches for the intertwining, coordinating, and expanding of ministry. 

For obvious reasons, in this season of life, this is the nature of “church” to which I pay greatest attention.  Whether we are talking about denominations, associations, or networks, the nature of “church” here all refers to something beyond the local church, but more concrete than the universal church.  It is something covenantal, purposeful, and connected. 

With this in mind, I want to share 6 areas that are marking the “churches” in our time who are demonstrating vitality and momentum.  The truth is, the great majority of “denominations” today are severely challenged, so it’s not as difficult to observe the common marks of those that are not. 

Mark 1:  Most churches (within the family) demonstrate an outward orientation from an Orthodox position related to the core understandings of the church throughout the ages.

What is important about this marker is that it illustrates that BOTH of these dispositions are vital.  A network of churches (and the individual churches themselves) must generally be focused outward in bearing witness to the good news of Jesus Christ in their community AND they must maintain Orthodoxy despite the cultural pressures attempting to dissuade them from such a posture.  It’s also important to note the reverse of this mark – church families that, as a whole, do not face outward and do not maintain Orthodoxy are struggling.  For all of my looking, I have yet to observe a denomination or family of churches that is departing Orthodoxy (or moving left of center) that could be said to be living in vitality and with momentum.

For all of my looking, I have yet to observe a denomination or family of churches that is departing Orthodoxy (or moving left of center) that could be said to be living in vitality and with momentum. Click To Tweet

Mark 2:  Most churches have learned to be perseverant, steadfast, and opportunistic according to what is called for in the right season. 

Here is the recognition that often what makes a congregation fruitful is that it knows how to wisely carry itself in different seasons of life. Families of churches that are encouraging each of these postures in their corresponding seasons create a culture where congregations understand the season in which they find themselves. Ministry is not always stable.  There are seasons of difficulty and pruning. Our response in those seasons is to persevere.  If the season never ends, we may be able to safely assume that a more permanent decision related to the congregation’s life is in order, but for the most part, difficult seasons come and go. This is particularly true in church planting. When we are in more stable/plateaued seasons, the important key is not to assume that everything needs to change. In our world of immediate demands for success, when things are not moving “up and to the right” our tendency can be to assume something is wrong. Instead, it may be simply important to just hold steady.  I can think of many, many churches within our network (Evergreen, Kairos, New Denver, Neighborhood Church, All Souls, Renew, and many others) that demonstrated perseverance through challenges and patience in steady seasons.

Finally, and this is perhaps the greatest skill congregations need to hone, is how to move into a mentality of opportunity when a “harvest time” arises.  I cannot even count the number of situations I am aware of that a church did not act upon the opportunity in front of them. Had they done so, it could have had a dramatic impact on the faith of the community and the vibrancy of the church for years to come. Yet, a lack of faith, or a spirit of mediocrity, or an unwillingness to double effort for a season caused the door of opportunity to close. In contrast, there are many churches in our network (Church @ the Well, Brick City, Redemption, and many others) who saw opportunities in front of them and took steps of faith even when the outcome was not certain.    


Mark 3:  The family is making preparations for a future where the average participant is less wealthy, and less “western”. 

Families of churches that are demonstrating a path toward a vibrant future are fully aware of the demographic changes taking place in North American Christianity. They understand that the people of the world have come to North America and that the shape of the future church will not be determined by the people that have shaped the past. There will be more congregations in each family representing particular people groups and more congregations reflecting the multi-cultural nature of our cities.  As the “Anglo” church shrinks in number, it is critical that an appropriate transfer of leadership and authority be enacted. Where this reality is present, the “church” is doing better. Further, these associations of churches also understand that the average member of the family will, most likely, have a smaller economic capacity than in the past. The cause of this is partly from generational shifts, partly from the multi-ethnic composition of the future church, and partly because of slow growing or stagnating wages impacting most people that call the United States home. All in all, the church will not enjoy the financial capacity it has been accustomed to for the last several decades. Where we are learning to get “leaner and meaner”, there is vitality. In some aspects of this Ecclesia is strong, and in others we really need help.  We are great at not being “wealthy,” but are not as far along at being “less western.” Our heart yearns for this though. 

Mark 4:  Most churches maintain a hopefulness in God’s work and a commitment to trust that God’s ways will prevail.

There is much to be said about the capacity for faith among churches that are prevailing in the midst of our cultural moment. In fact, it’s hard to find thorough examples of churches that are prevailing without a high degree of faith and trust in the Kingdom of God revealed through the person and work of the Jesus Christ and manifested most clearly within the pages of scripture as illumined by the ongoing work of the Spirit. Ultimately, churches that put their hope in this reality in spite of whatever circumstances they are facing, will see God come through for them in due time.  The churches in Ecclesia that have trusted in this aspect of God’s action and character have seen surprising outcomes.  The churches that have followed this path in Ecclesia over the years are too numerous to name.  I can say that many of them have seen God’s clear action and redemption on the other side of their faithfulness.  Yet, some still wait, but they stay faithful.

Mark 5:  The family as a whole gives the majority of its efforts to clear strategies that make and multiply disciples.

Groups of churches that are moving with vibrancy today focus on fewer areas in their life together. Once upon a time, families of churches (mostly in the form of denominations and associations), attempted to cover the full gamut of Christian experience in their resourcing and common life. It would not be abnormal to find everything from Christian camping to annuity planning and from worship resources to Sunday school. Today, those moving with strength are really focused on whatever it will take to make and multiply disciples. Typically, this manifests itself in areas of focus around developing leaders, church planting, church renewal and growth, evangelism and community impact, etc. 

Today, those moving with strength are really focused on whatever it will take to make and multiply disciples. Click To Tweet

Mark 6:  Theological clarity exists among the churches and theological coherence exists between the churches. 

This one is perhaps far more important than many leaders in our day might first consider. In just about every family of churches that demonstrate clear signs of momentum today, very little time is spent on debating divergent theological views. In other words, churches associated with one another have clarity about what they believe together and their beliefs are coherent with each other. Coherence is not the same as complete agreement. Yet, incoherence is detrimental. For instance, it is hard to cohere together two divergent understandings of what Christian marriage means theologically and scripturally. It is also difficult to cohere a hermeneutic that leads to either of those opposing positions. I’m using these as examples since they are the most clear demonstrations of theological incoherence impacting families of churches today. Again, I am hard pressed to find any example of a family of churches that is thriving where such incoherence is present. Out of a commitment to both what we believe to be faithful and fruitful, we press fully into this reality. 

What This Means For Ecclesia

As I’ve reflected a great deal on the networks of churches that seem to be cutting against the grain of struggle, I’m encouraged by many of these aspects within Ecclesia. There are some where we are doing well as a “church” together and there are others that clearly need more focus and attention. Like any local church our “church” is a work in progress.  Nevertheless, as a leadership team for our network, we are committed to strengthening, developing, and growing further in each of these marks as they represent a concrete set of guidance for how ministries like Ecclesia are thriving today. Of course, we are only striving for these markers in so much as they represent many of the very same things that are helping our churches (as a whole) thrive today as well. Within Ecclesia we hold up the primacy of the local church – for it is the epicenter of God’s action in the world. Yet, primacy is not the same as autonomy or independence. We are better as a “church” when we act together, cohere together and stand in faithfulness together.  My long-term contention has been that the early church network probably looked a good bit like what Ecclesia (and others like us) looks today.  I hope that in so doing we honor Christ and have even a small percentage of the impact as those first followers of the Resurrected Son. 

by

From the National Director: Timelines

This summer Rachel and I have been gearing up for something we both thought we would never do – homeschooling!  For a variety of reasons we have discerned this is the best path for our family in the near-term.  As we have tried to dig ourselves into the world of curriculum for elementary school age children, we have found out just how much education has changed since we were little!  One of our favorite resources that we stumbled upon as we’ve tried to put together a stellar plan is the “timeline” song used by some who take the classical approach to education.  If you have never heard it before, you should look it up on Youtube.  It is sung to a relatively catchy tune for elementary age children and will refresh your memory on everything you were once taught in history classes that you have long forgotten.  The song lasts almost 13 minutes and ends with a reminder to the children that they are now part of the time-line of history and indeed can make some history of their own!

Ecclesia is coming up on 10 years since we “officially” started this Fall.  Our time-line began with a collection of 4 churches scattered across the country who envisioned a family on mission with one another.  The task of cultivating faithful expressions of the gospel in community seems more daunting now than when we first began a short decade ago.  The cultural landscape in the US has changed a great deal during that time, presenting great challenges to the people of Jesus who wish to provide a faithful and compelling witness.  Yet, with those great challenges are also great opportunities.

As I’ve thought about Ecclesia’s timeline and the timeline of many of the churches within our network, I know that many of you have experienced a season of challenge in the last year.  Some of you hoped that the challenges of 2016 would not carry into a new year.  For some that has turned about to the case, for others you find yourself still amidst of hardship.  In many ways, what the churches of Ecclesia experience in their life is what “we” as a network experience.  If it’s a tough year financially for you, it becomes a tough year financially for us.  If you are navigating thorny issues and conflict, we are navigating thorny issues and conflict, because we are committed to walk together.  Simultaneously, when new people enter the kingdom of God, or a family or neighborhood begins to be transformed, we all celebrate that with one another.

As I look over our collective timelines and with the jingle of the “timeline” song in my head, it’s a relief to remember that history is full of ups and downs, of seasons of fruitfulness and seasons of pruning.  The fruitfulness comes in cycles, as does the pruning.  Some years back Mike Breen spoke at our Ecclesia National Gathering and he reminded us that in seasons of pruning, our primary task is to abide (John 15).  We draw close to Jesus during those moments, we place ourselves mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically at rest and under his care.  We connect ourselves more to the source of life and in so doing, we will be renewed when the season of fruitfulness comes again.  Just as we are intended to abide and Christ during those moments, I hope that we can also abide/remain/be connected to one another.  For those who are in a different season, we celebrate with you and share in the joyful progress of the ministry Christ has given to your hands and heart.  It’s a tangible reminder that these seasons come and go.    In truth, it’s rare that fruitfulness and pruning are that distinct from one another.  The reality is that often they are both happening simultaneously, but our experience is identified by one more than the other.

Recently I was visiting a network church and talking with one of our pastors who was sharing with me how they occasionally lament that they don’t have a building as it often feels like a barrier to growth in their community.  He then went on to tell me how his wife recently corrected him about his lamentations as they have 80-100 people within their congregation who really “get it” and are genuinely pursuing Jesus and His mission.  As he sat with those words he told me that he came to see what a beautiful thing he has caring for in those 80-100 people.  I couldn’t agree more.

Whether you have 500-1000 in your congregation (as some churches in Ecclesia do) or 30-40 (as others do), helping the people of Jesus loves to grow up into the measure of the statue of the fullness of Christ is an awesome and history making task within itself, particularly as you help them come to understand their role in the great time-line of God’s kingdom action here on earth.  Each week you preach or pray or create or counsel is a critical task.  And, in spite of the odds, we can take great joy in knowing that those who have gone before and those who will come after have felt this same way.  So, let’s take joy in hardship and celebration and let’s do it together!

by

If 2016 was a Challenging Year – You’re Not Alone!

chris_backertI know many leaders within Ecclesia who are happy to put 2016 in the rear view mirror.  While any year in church leadership is full of a mixture of highs and lows, successes and failures, and moments of God’s Action or (seeming) inaction, 2016 seemed to tip toward the challenging for many in Ecclesia.

I can’t think of another year since Ecclesia began where more congregations were …

  • Faced with financial challenges
  • Grappling with how to maintain scriptural fidelity to Orthodoxy while the climate around us becomes increasingly secular
  • Experienced significant transitions in leadership within the congregations
  • Dealt with significant conflicts that shake up the entire congregation, or at best, put a strain among staff.
  • And of course, this is not to mention the peculiar season we face in the United States in the church’s relationship to the political process.  

Yes, 2016 was a year of obstacles for just about every church in Ecclesia (and from my vantage point, those outside Ecclesia too).  

Here is what we must remember though- in these moments where we face challenges – we are not alone!   We know this to be true right?  Jesus told us he would be with us always, until the end of the age (Matthew 28).  He also told us that he would not leave us as orphans, but send another comforter (John 14).   We are not alone.  Yet, why do so many church leaders feel alone?

I would suggest that often we feel alone because we face our challenges alone.  We can be isolated as congregations, and therefore are more isolated from help when the attacks of the enemy or the effects of sin break forth in our midst.  I dare say that churches that only look to themselves locally (fellow pastors, boards, elders, congregants, etc) always fare worse than those that look beyond their local context for help and support.  Always.  

Jesus left us with the reality of his presence through the impartation of the Holy Spirit in perpetuity.  The Holy Spirit takes it’s primary residence in relationship to the people of God, and this is not simply a “local church” reality.  It’s clear in the New Testament that there is a “local church” and a “universal church” but there is also a “regional church.”  Whether this was the church in a region or a wider city (i.e. letter to Colossians), or most often referenced to the trans-local band of apostles and evangelists and prophets and teachers that worked among and throughout the early church, it’s clear that there was a concrete and personal community that was intended to exist in fellowship beyond a local congregation, even outside its own city.  There is a fairly good basis to say that the strength of the New Testament church was at least partially in relation to a local congregation having a proactive relationship to this “middle” space between the local and universal.  I think that today, even occasionally among Ecclesia churches, we have a tendency to forget the vital role the “trans-local church” carries..  It is the “network” level of church that keeps the local congregation from becoming myopic or insulated within its own locality.  It’s the “network” level that helps make the universal church concrete and un-ethereal.  

Read More

by

Reality Check- Who is the Real Enemy?

It seems that we are at a time in our nation when it’s hard to make friends, but it’s easy to make enemies.  I can’t tell you the number of people I have heard that have been “de-friended” or ridiculed for expressing a political opinion one way or another.  I know of many sincere, non-ideological followers of Christ that have been vilified by suggesting they may vote for Trump, and many sincere, non-ideological followers of Christ that have been vilified for suggesting they may vote for Clinton.  Recently, some of the prominent, Christian, political operatives in our country have even demeaned those who are suggesting that their conscience cannot allow them to vote for President at all.  Indeed, we seem to be able to easily identify an enemy.

I’ve come to the point where I have great compassion and empathy for anyone who has struggled with this decision – whether to vote Trump, or Clinton, or neither (or other).  To those who say they intend to vote for Trump because of the Supreme Court alone, or their wish to “stick it” to the political principalities and powers, I understand.  To those who intend to vote for Clinton because of her concern for the poor or her advocacy for women across the globe, not to mention the significance of having a woman in the oval office, I too understand.  When I think about my own faith, and the fact that by voting I am still personally endorsing two bad options, I am inclined to not vote at all.  And here, it is possible, that any of these words may create an enemy for me.

Often I find myself these days coming back to the one thing I know to be supreme above all, and that is Jesus and the church he founded.  These are realities that are concrete and far less ambiguous.  In a time when enemies are being created by the day, we have something very important to offer – a reality check for who the real enemy is.

In 2 Corinthians 4 we are reminded that the God of this world has blinded the eyes of those who do not believe.  Ephesians 6 tells us that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and powers.  1 Peter warns us that the devil is roaming about like a roaring lion, seeking whom to devour.  As Christians we know who the real enemy is – or do we?

The other day when my daughter was sick, I sat and watched the Disney movie Mulan with her.  The main antagonist in the story – Shan Yu – was spoken of often.  He was identified by the protagonists, they did their best to develop a strategy to defeat him, and it was clear they were aware (and in that case, concerned) about him.  It was clear to them who the enemy was and you could tell by the amount of “air time” he got.  If you looked at most churches today, across the theological spectrum, one thing is mostly certain: in few places would any neutral observer be able to identify who we actually believe our real enemy is.  In our more progressive circles, we are doubtful that the Satan even exists.  If he does, it is in some elusive and undiscernible form.  Our more conservative circles are not too altogether different (though some corners of both Charismaticism/Pentecostalism are an exception).   While we believe that the scriptures say the Satan is real, we rarely speak of him, also attributing his actions to some elusive and undiscernible form (and most of the “spiritual realm” we handle similarly).  For those among us who are Centrist, I find that we believe in the devil and often know that he is really acting, but because we know that most in our congregations fall to one side or the other of us in this area, we rarely speak of our sub-human enemy at all.  It’s no wonder we have so many other enemies – we can’t identify a personality big enough to occupy everything we need to lay at the feet of all that we disdain.  C.S. Lewis was right when he said, “if the devils exist, their first aim is to give you an anesthetic – to put you off your guard.  Only if that fails, do you become aware of them.

Herein is our great opportunity – name the devil – identify his works – articulate a strategy for his defeat – don’t let him blind us as well.  When is the last time you preached a sermon, or led a study, on how to deal with the devil?  Can you recall if you have exorcised a demon?  Or, how about something less overt?  Have you prayed against the devil and his schemes?  Have you incorporated this important element of our faith into your liturgy?  (You would need to have written it yourself as most liturgies omit this critical dimension of our faith).  So, how can you begin to inform and equip your congregation to deal with the devil and his works?  Jesus dealt with the reality of the devil quite often.  So should we.

This is not a “devil or demon under every rock” theology.  As best as I understand, the bible does not present the picture of a devil that is omni-present.  There are also limitations on demons and we are clearly told in the scriptures that the devil can, even now, be defeated and that the demons tremble at the name of Jesus (James 4, Matthew 8, Mark 5).  We should be so bold to speak his name, proclaim his blood, and give witness to our testimony (Rev. 12).

To my fellow pastors and leaders, I know that many of us fall into the category of leaders who believe the devil exist, who understand him to be a real personality, as well as being engaged in the “systems” of the world.  Yet, never talking about him is exactly his wish.  I suspect that he is happy to defer his glory for his gratification.  It’s time we fight back – for this is something that ONLY a Christian can do.  Indeed, this is the enemy we need to fight in these days.

by

How to Kill the Church You Planted When You Move On

There are some occasions when I wish that I was an actual Bishop.  One of those repeated moments is when I find out that a church within Ecclesia is about to go through a pastoral transition.  In fact, I cringe almost every time that I first get the news.  Quite honestly this is born out of the pain of seeing several new churches (and some within Ecclesia) carry out the process of transition so poorly.  Normally, the transition decimates them to the degree that it sets the congregation on an inevitable path of closure.  What is most unfortunate about this is that prior to the change, they were actually quite vital.  Up until recently, Ecclesia has offered help in each of these situations for the churches in our network (and even some without).  I can tell you that in the situations our outside guidance has been received, the church has found itself on a good path.  In those situations where it has not (which is more often than I wish) in every situation, the church has been crippled or killed. 

Transitions are hard for all churches, but they are particularly hard for churches that have never gone through them before.  I’m not saying that the Ecclesia staff or other member churches are all knowing when it comes to pastoral changes, but in an abundance of counsel there is wisdom.  More than likely, our collective experience is greater than any of our individual churches. 

Here are the common mistakes I see made for younger congregations.

Mistake # 1:  The Lead Pastor or Founding Pastor assumes that the church they started will be fine.  They are almost always wrong.  If a church has been around a few dozen years and has seen a transition or two, they have weathered these storms before.  They are also not nearly as likely to be as attached to the pastor, as they have already had a few. 

Mistake # 2:  The Lead Pastor or Founding Pastor leaves too quickly.  For most churches, a month between announcement and departure is a good timeline.  If it’s a retirement, longer is better and more tenable.  However, in most new congregations, longer is needed.   Usually 3-6 months is ideal. 

Mistake # 3:  The church chooses the wrong interim leadership plan.  If the transition of the Founding Pastor cripples a new congregation, the wrong interim leadership plan is often a death blow.  The most honest reason for this is that young congregations are overwhelmed at the departure and also over stretched in time.  Typically they will choose interim leadership without the qualification that they cannot be considered for long-term leadership.  It should be clear that all interim situations cannot be the eventual situation to all parties.  Obviously, there may be rare exceptions, but they should be considered only at the very end of a leadership search or discernment process.

Mistake # 4:  The church chooses the wrong successor or successors to the founding pastor. 

More often than not, they choose someone internal to the congregation.  This may or may not be a good choice.  However, in our network, it should be a choice where other Ecclesia leaders look at and say “that makes sense”.  I have seen too many churches fail to heed our council.  None of them have done well. 

It is common practice to receive outside guidance during transition and for a new leadership situation to be affirmed from those “close” but not “in” the congregation.

Mistake # 5:  In a shared leadership situation, it is assumed that one of the other leaders is the right choice. 

This is a further application of the previous mistake.  Shared leadership is a complicated scenario.  Whereas I used to be an advocate of shared leadership, I now see its many pitfalls, despite my internal optimism that it should “work”.  Its pitfalls are often most obvious in times of transition.  The major problem with shared leadership is there is the lack of an honest account of “why” it works when it does.  My experience on this is wide-ranging and I only know of 3 situations where those in shared leadership had an internal and shared understanding of why it works and the gifts they each bring.  When that happens shared leadership can be beautiful, when it does not, transitions expose the cracks that were typically unspoken or obvious to those outside. 

Mistake # 6:  Not involving the founding pastor in the future direction. 

While I can often understand the rationale for excluding the previous leader in the future picture, among those who have started the church, I believe it should be held open for their inclusion.  I further believe that an external reference should be a primary guide on whether or not they should be.  From one angle, if the transition has come under good and noble circumstances, then there is likely no person more vested in seeing the church thrive upon their departure.  They also have a certain objective proximity that is invaluable.  The main reason I would suggest not involving them is if they have any associations of guilt or burnout with their departure.  These two realities typically make the founder un-objective. 

Why am I communicating this now?

I’ve noticed these things for a long while and wanting to maintain our value of the “primacy of the local church” I have always offered to help in transition, but have been quiet when it has not been received.  I know there are churches within Ecclesia going through transitions right now, and it’s possible that they will read this with an assumption that it is written for them specifically – it is not (though it is written for them generally).

I’m breaking my silence on this now for two reasons.  First, I’m very tired of seeing churches in Ecclesia (and those like our congregations) decimated by poor transition.  Almost always they are decimated needlessly.  I am also observing, at this very moment, what appears to be the conclusion of a very good transition that Ecclesia was involved with and our outside input was greatly considered.  Second, I’m returning from speaking to the entire Kentucky Methodist Annual Conference which happened to coincide with the retirement of Bishop Lindsay Davis.  It was a joy and honor to attend his retirement celebration.  He had been a good Bishop and it was obvious.  His help and wisdom in seasons of difficulty within churches and the conference was particularly valued.  Of course, he had the authority in which his help was not in question.

While I am not a Bishop, I have a Bishop’s care.  The least I can do is speak plainly and provide a warning to all our churches and those like them elsewhere.